| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2006 10:00:25 PM |
| Object: |
Bill May Give Husbands Veto Over Abortion |
Who'd have thought that Russia would take the lead in exhibiting common
sense? God bless them!
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/11/24/014.html
State Duma deputies will consider a bill barring a wife from having an
abortion without her husband's consent.
"Above all, the bill is based on the concept of parental equality," its
author, Alexander Krutov of the nationalist Rodina party, said Thursday.
"The decision to give birth to or murder a baby is an enormous one and it
should be made by the parents together," he said by telephone.
The bill would require a wife to obtain her husband's written consent in the
presence of a doctor before having an abortion. A doctor who allows an
abortion without the written consent could face murder charges, Krutov said.
The bill will have to clear the State Duma's Public Health Committee before
being sent to the floor of the Duma for discussion, a process that could
take three weeks, Krutov said.
Women had more than 1.6 million abortions in 2005, roughly equal to the
number of births, Health and Social Development Minister Mikhail Zurabov
told the Duma in February.
The abortion rate, while still comparatively high, has declined over the
past decade. In 1993, it peaked at 235 per 100 live births. Around 46
million women worldwide have abortions each year, with the highest rates in
Romania, Cuba and Vietnam and the lowest rates in Belgium, the Netherlands
and Germany
--
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
29 Nov 2006 02:27:22 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft, I don't know where you came
up with that.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing, so talk
to yourself about fantasies since you like to create them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
29 Nov 2006 10:53:38 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
29 Nov 2006 10:57:29 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****? Nobody ever said anything about a C-5
being a "combat aircraft". You made it up.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about. I served in
Desert Storm, which was combat *****. I served with a combat ready
unit, and helped provide support to combat units. You were the coward
who sat at home arguing in a newsgroup and watching it on television,
or did your mommy not allow you to watch t.v.?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
29 Nov 2006 11:09:05 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it, and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
29 Nov 2006 12:05:00 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No, just clarified a statement you morons couldn't comprehend. Other
than that the USAF totally disagrees with you.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
29 Nov 2006 12:45:28 PM |
|
|
In article <1164823500.011791.296480@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
this is amusing. osprey, currently known as the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar in a flamewar with ray fischer, formerly known as
t.a.'s most dishonest poster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
29 Nov 2006 02:34:47 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> writes:
In article <1164823500.011791.296480@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
this is amusing. osprey, currently known as the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar in a flamewar with ray fischer, formerly known as
t.a.'s most dishonest poster.
Bobby's exhibited the kind of behavior that you'd expect from the 419 mail
spammers...fortunately, he can't keep track of his own *****-ups, so he's not
likely to ever con anyone out of anything of value.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 6, Grand Rapids 1 (November 26)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, December 2 at Omaha, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
29 Nov 2006 03:01:21 PM |
|
|
In article <szkbqmq3sbc.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> writes:
In article <1164823500.011791.296480@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
this is amusing. osprey, currently known as the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar in a flamewar with ray fischer, formerly known as
t.a.'s most dishonest poster.
Bobby's exhibited the kind of behavior that you'd expect from the 419 mail
spammers...fortunately, he can't keep track of his own *****-ups, so he's not
likely to ever con anyone out of anything of value.
it amuses me that only two people have ever lied about my oft-posted
abortion stance: osprey and ray fischer. i guess people find their
own level.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 01:22:51 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <szkbqmq3sbc.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> writes:
In article <1164823500.011791.296480@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
this is amusing. osprey, currently known as the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar in a flamewar with ray fischer, formerly known as
t.a.'s most dishonest poster.
Bobby's exhibited the kind of behavior that you'd expect from the 419 mail
spammers...fortunately, he can't keep track of his own *****-ups, so he's not
likely to ever con anyone out of anything of value.
it amuses me that only two people have ever lied about my oft-posted
abortion stance: osprey and ray fischer.
Prove it.
I say that YOU are the one who lies about your position, just as
you've lied about mine.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 06:12:50 AM |
|
|
In article <456e86cb$0$34527$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <szkbqmq3sbc.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> writes:
In article <1164823500.011791.296480@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
this is amusing. osprey, currently known as the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar in a flamewar with ray fischer, formerly known as
t.a.'s most dishonest poster.
Bobby's exhibited the kind of behavior that you'd expect from the 419 mail
spammers...fortunately, he can't keep track of his own *****-ups, so he's
not
likely to ever con anyone out of anything of value.
it amuses me that only two people have ever lied about my oft-posted
abortion stance: osprey and ray fischer.
I say that YOU are the one who lies
of course you do. that's why nora peal said:
[nora peal to liar ray]
"You know, your seemingly obsessive hatred of keegan
is rather pathetic. Is this what has caused you to
become t.a.'s most dishonest poster?"
<34cp1c$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 09:38:53 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
Bobby's exhibited the kind of behavior that you'd expect from the 419 mail
spammers...fortunately, he can't keep track of his own *****-ups, so he's
not
likely to ever con anyone out of anything of value.
it amuses me that only two people have ever lied about my oft-posted
abortion stance: osprey and ray fischer.
I say that YOU are the one who lies
of course you do.
And you don't deny it. Like heishman you whine when others point out
your cowardice.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 09:53:54 AM |
|
|
In article <456efb0d$0$34521$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
Bobby's exhibited the kind of behavior that you'd expect from the 419
mail
spammers...fortunately, he can't keep track of his own *****-ups, so
he's
not
likely to ever con anyone out of anything of value.
it amuses me that only two people have ever lied about my oft-posted
abortion stance: osprey and ray fischer.
I say that YOU are the one who lies
of course you do.
===begin restore unmarked deletion
that's why nora peal said:
[nora peal to liar ray]
"You know, your seemingly obsessive hatred of keegan
is rather pathetic. Is this what has caused you to
become t.a.'s most dishonest poster?"
<34cp1c$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
====end restore unmarked deletion
And you don't deny it.
nora was right. why would i deny it. you prove she was right in each
of your responses to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 10:25:20 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
Bobby's exhibited the kind of behavior that you'd expect from the 419
mail
spammers...fortunately, he can't keep track of his own *****-ups, so
he's
not
likely to ever con anyone out of anything of value.
it amuses me that only two people have ever lied about my oft-posted
abortion stance: osprey and ray fischer.
I say that YOU are the one who lies
of course you do.
And you don't deny it.
nora was right. why would i deny it.
Because you're stupid.
You're a liar and you got caught again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 10:49:08 AM |
|
|
In article <456f05f0$0$34487$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
Bobby's exhibited the kind of behavior that you'd expect from the
419
mail
spammers...fortunately, he can't keep track of his own *****-ups, so
he's
not
likely to ever con anyone out of anything of value.
it amuses me that only two people have ever lied about my oft-posted
abortion stance: osprey and ray fischer.
I say that YOU are the one who lies
of course you do.
===begin restore unmarked deletion
that's why nora peal said:
[nora peal to liar ray]
"You know, your seemingly obsessive hatred of keegan
is rather pathetic. Is this what has caused you to
become t.a.'s most dishonest poster?"
<34cp1c$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
====end restore unmarked deletion
And you don't deny it.
nora was right. why would i deny it.
===begin restore unmarked deletion
you prove she was right in each of your responses to me.
===end restore unmarked deletion
Because you're stupid.
oh my, how can you say such a cruel thing? *smirk*
you're a liar and you got caught again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 01:21:56 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1164823500.011791.296480@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
this is amusing. osprey, currently known as the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar in a flamewar with ray fischer, formerly known as
t.a.'s most dishonest poster.
keegan, known as the newgroups most dishonest pervert, whines about
other people. What a surprise.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 06:13:33 AM |
|
|
In article <456e8694$0$34527$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1164823500.011791.296480@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
this is amusing. osprey, currently known as the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar in a flamewar with ray fischer, formerly known as
t.a.'s most dishonest poster.
keegan, known as the newgroups most dishonest
no wonder nora peal said:
[nora peal to liar ray]
"You know, your seemingly obsessive hatred of keegan
is rather pathetic. Is this what has caused you to
become t.a.'s most dishonest poster?"
<34cp1c$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 09:40:25 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
this is amusing. osprey, currently known as the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar in a flamewar with ray fischer, formerly known as
t.a.'s most dishonest poster.
keegan, known as the newgroups most dishonest
no wonder nora peal
Hiding behind somebody's skirts that nobody knows isn't going to
impress anybody, coward. It just shows everybody that you're just a
little coward too scared to stand up for yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 09:51:49 AM |
|
|
In article <456efb69$0$34521$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
this is amusing. osprey, currently known as the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar in a flamewar with ray fischer, formerly known as
t.a.'s most dishonest poster.
keegan, known as the newgroups most dishonest
no wonder nora peal
==begin restore unmarked deletion
said:
[nora peal to liar ray]
"You know, your seemingly obsessive hatred of keegan
is rather pathetic. Is this what has caused you to
become t.a.'s most dishonest poster?"
<34cp1c$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
==end restore unmarked deletion
Hiding behind somebody's
is that what you were doing when you deleted that text. hiding from
me?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 01:21:18 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 01:48:51 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are wrong..again
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 01:57:38 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 02:04:37 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
You were not there in Desert Storm, and you were not on the C-5's that
dropped cargo in combat zones...I was.
Now, if you can convince me that you can show the AMC to be wrong, then
you got something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 09:41:11 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
You're lying, *****.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
Prove it, *****. Your ***** claims count for nothing at all.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 09:47:13 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
You're lying, *****.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
Prove it, *****. Your ***** claims count for nothing at all.
You can't get a much better source than the USAF, so there you go. It's
proven. Deal with it or prove me wrong, *****. Your ***** lies
are all you have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 10:18:58 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
You're lying, *****.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
Prove it, *****. Your ***** claims count for nothing at all.
You can't get a much better source than the USAF, so there you go.
You're not the USAF, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 10:21:06 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
You're lying, *****.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
Prove it, *****. Your ***** claims count for nothing at all.
You can't get a much better source than the USAF, so there you go.
You're not the USAF, moron.
I gave the most valid source possible, you failed to follow up.
You gave nothing but ***** and lies.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1969/sep-oct/faught.html
ESAD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 10:27:56 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
You're lying, *****.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
Prove it, *****. Your ***** claims count for nothing at all.
You can't get a much better source than the USAF, so there you go.
You're not the USAF, moron.
I gave the most valid source possible,
And proved yourself to be stupid again..
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1969/sep-oct/faught.html
That describes the C-5's cargo capabilities, moron. Just because they
use the word "combat" to describe it's combat support uses doesn't
make it a combat aircraft, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 10:30:03 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
You're lying, *****.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
Prove it, *****. Your ***** claims count for nothing at all.
You can't get a much better source than the USAF, so there you go.
You're not the USAF, moron.
I gave the most valid source possible,
And proved yourself to be stupid again..
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1969/sep-oct/faught.html
That describes the C-5's cargo capabilities, moron. Just because they
use the word "combat" to describe it's combat support uses doesn't
make it a combat aircraft, moron.
And you proved yourself to be as stupid as ever...again....
And again, for the illiterate and stupid..since you can't seem to grasp
this.
I shall use caps to emphasize this loud and clear.
*****
NO ONE SAID THE C-5 IS A "COMBAT AIRCRAFT".
How many times does this need to be repeated for you to get it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 10:56:25 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
You're lying, *****.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
Prove it, *****. Your ***** claims count for nothing at all.
You can't get a much better source than the USAF, so there you go.
You're not the USAF, moron.
I gave the most valid source possible,
And proved yourself to be stupid again..
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1969/sep-oct/faught.html
That describes the C-5's cargo capabilities, moron. Just because they
use the word "combat" to describe it's combat support uses doesn't
make it a combat aircraft, moron.
And you proved yourself to be as stupid as ever...again....
And again, for the illiterate and stupid..since you can't seem to grasp
this.
I shall use caps to emphasize this loud and clear.
*****
NO ONE SAID THE C-5 IS A "COMBAT AIRCRAFT".
So, in fact, when you claimed the USAF agreed with you, you were
lying. And when you said I was wrong you were lying.
Business as usual.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: How about a bill that allows men to walk away? |
30 Nov 2006 11:27:47 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
No, you are looking at the right post. He provided you absolutely no
reference, no sources, no credible data at all to support his
allegations and/or opinions.
Kind of like you.
Oh, like when you said the C-5 has no role in combat
No, you lying *****, I said that it was not a combat aircraft.
Nobody ever said it was a combat aircraft,
Just how stupid are you, moron?
How stupid are you, *****?
Not as stupid as you who gets caught lying on a regular basis, as you
did just above.
Pull your head out of your ***** and try dealing with the real world
instead of living in your fetid little fantasies, *****.
You're the one who made up the whole "combat aircraft" thing,
You're the one who made up the whole "I was in combat" fantasy.
You are the one who doesn't know what he was talking about.
You weren't in combat because 1) you admitted it,
No,
Liar.
You are
Stop lying, *****.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
You're lying, *****.
and 2) the C-5 isn't
a combat aircraft.
And no one ever suggested it was.
And it's kind of hard to do combat in a non-combat aircraft.
I guess you have to take it up with the USAF AMC, since they say you
are wrong.
No they don't, liar.
Take it up with the USAF since they say you are wrong.
Prove it, *****. Your ***** claims count for nothing at all.
You can't get a much better source than the USAF, so there you go.
You're not the USAF, moron.
I gave the most valid source possible,
And proved yourself to be stupid again..
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1969/sep-oct/faught.html
That describes the C-5's cargo capabilities, moron. Just because they
use the word "combat" to describe it's combat support uses doesn't
make it a combat aircraft, moron.
And you proved yourself to be as stupid as ever...again....
And again, for the illiterate and stupid..since you can't seem to grasp
this.
I shall use caps to emphasize this loud and clear.
*****
NO ONE SAID THE C-5 IS A "COMBAT AIRCRAFT".
So, in fact, when you claimed the USAF agreed with you, you were
lying. And when you said I was wrong you were lying.
The USAF does agree with me on the role of the C-5.
You lied when you claimed someone said the C-5 was a "combat aircraft".
Once again, for the intellectual impaird (that's you).
NO ONE SAID THE C-5 IS A COMBAT AIRCRAFT.
Just accept the humiliation and walk away now, you cant' support
yourself or your statements any longer. This going back and forth
having to repeat myself over and over is getting old and wasting time.
Besides, no one is reading your stupid comments and you have a
bickering battle to do with moron keegan.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
